Sad to say, after 13 years of greatness . . .

[jenkins]

<p>3/3</p>

[astral]

<p>The way my browser, Firewall and other filters are configured I just don't ever see any advertising - this applies more so at work where the firewall is extremely sensitive. <em></em></p>

<p><em>There are two sides to this</em> : Firstly, the inconvenience of having unwanted and unwelcome pop-ups (etc) getting in the way has gone - great!. However, I know that sometimes there is useful or interesting information in such pop-ups & ads and that I may be missing.</p>

<p>With Photo.net being an international venue, though largely centered on the US, I do suspect that much of the advertising that will appear here will be irrelevant to me anyway. So, what I would like is a sort of <em>Yellow Pages</em> or <em>sponsored links</em> page where I can go - <em>at my choice</em> - and browse through various adverts and advertorial features, offers and promotions, just like in the back of a photo magazine. In reality, when I buy a photo mag I actually spend more time browsing the adverts than reading the editorial features - but I'd be extremely pee'd off if every page had distracting adverts popping up as I try to read an article or thumb through the contents page. Just a thought.</p>

<p>AC (England)</p>

[GerrySiegel]

<p>Over the years,true, there have been changes, and not all for the worse as you,OP, judge. PN has grown from what seemed at first a small living room size 'club' to an auditorium size 'assembly' with "breakout rooms." Is there not an advantage in a global forum. I have the positive feeling that management does listen to and heed members' suggestions. And ads,well, just a fact of media life. (Never get me started on cable TV, pu-leeze. I pay big bucks for that 'membership'; a black hole of ads and more ads.) I agree with one thing. Phil was a great writer. Did some good essays.</p>

[john_hanlon3]

<p>"Photo.net has sunk to the bottom of credibility."</p>

<p>What a load of rubbish. Photonet is better now than it ever was; I just renewed my subscription.</p>

[MichaelChang]

<p>John, it's not rubbish if one genuinely perceives it that way. It would be far more useful to discuss reasons for such perceptions than to be dismissive of it.</p>

[steve_mareno]

<p>John,</p>

<p> Many, many thanks for mentioning the Flashblock program! Now there's a good idea. I'll ck it out, since Firefox & Opera are all I use. Does anyone still use that bloated Internet Explorer anymore? I don't believe their market share stats. How can so many people still be using that slow, memory hogging, virus trap?</p>

<p>I don't mind the ads too much. I understand that bills need to be paid, and I'm not interested in 99% of them anyway. The emphasis on wildly overworked digital photos isn't my thing, but that's the market today. Fortunately the film categories are still full of good people and good info I can use. I think the moderation can be occasionally heavy handed, but it's a job I wouldn't want so not too many complaints. In fact, the site is still very useful to me. I don't buy into the "Photographic community" bull. It's a forum on the web for photographers. Nothing more than that, but that's good enough.</p>

[bobatkins]

<blockquote>

<p>The way my browser, Firewall and other filters are configured I just don't ever see any advertising - this applies more so at work where the firewall is extremely sensitive.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Unfortunately, if everyone took this approach, the next step would be to shut down the site and turn out the light. If you use the site on a regular basis, you don't subscribe and you block the ads then you are part of the problem, not part of the solution. The ads are the price you pay for entry, just like on broadcast TV and radio. If you want ad free TV you have to subscribe to cable (which still has ads so thenyou have to further subscribe to a premium channel) and if you want ad free radio you have to susbscribe a satellite radio. Sometimes ads only partially support the service, which is why you pay for most newspapers and magazines and you still get to read the ads there. The few magazines with no ads typically have very high subscription rates.</p>

<p>I can quite understand why some websites go to an "all subscription" model to pay the bills.</p>

[joshroot]

<p>Look at the fun I miss when I'm stuck traveling across the country!</p>

<p>Anyway, I just wanted to thank all of you who stood up for photo.net and the community here. Those of us who run the place do our best to grow/improve the site, keep it a viable business, and still stay true to the original mission of photographic community and education that has kept some of us here for over a decade.</p>

<p>Yes, there are ads on photo.net just as there are ads on almost every site of any size. That is the life of the internet these days. Large/complex sites aren't free to run and money has to be made. We are a business.</p>

<p>That having been said, photo.net works to do the best we can to present ads that aren't annoying and are hopefully are relevant to what our users might be interested in. Do you see any "You have won 2 free ipods" ads on PN? No, you don't. Do you see pop up ads? No you don't. Do you hear talking ads? No you don't. Sure, not every ad is a photographic ad, it's a slow economy and we have to make compromises sometimes. But I think users are doing much better here as far as ads compared to what they encounter across other parts of the internet.</p>

<p>But the bottom line is that if it doesn't work for you, that's okay. The internet is a big place and there is no site that is going to appeal to every single person. If photo.net isn't to your liking, it should not be too hard to find another site or community that suits you better. But I'm staying here. I'd say here even if I didn't work here. There's a reason that "10+" is next to my name. As an administrator, I understand why ads and "money" have to be paid attention to. But more importantly, as a user I understand as well. As long as I get the information and community I want from a site, I'm happy to help the site pay it's bills and operate as a successful business.</p>

<p>I'll close by saying thanks again to all the photo.net users. As for me, I'm going to drop this issue from my mind and get back to work on all the projects we have on the table. I'm pretty stoked about what we've got coming up around here.</p>

[py-photography]

<p>Well maybe its a dumb question but I have to ask..<br>

How does having some of ads on these pages, change the purpose or benefits of the site?<br>

I have a question for the orignal poster..<br>

How would you like for the bills to be paid?</p>

 

[Jeff Lear]

<p>Change is inevitable and as a result, there will always be a small percentage of the community that feels disenfranchised. From the looks of it, the Twitter account pushed the OP over the edge or maybe it was that he discovered that PN has a blog, I don't know. As other's have pointed out, I'm struck by his lack of membership but apparent entitlement to criticize what he gets for free.</p>

<p>I have done this before, started a community of like-minded folks. We originally rode on the back of another site, just a little category in their forum. There was obviously a demand because we quickly overloaded their server and were forced to go it on our own. Loyalists to the original host felt alienated and criticized us for moving away from a site they were familiar with. We left some behind, but our new site grew exponentially, no longer a weekend and evening project but something that required full-time management. The site is still going strong and has morphed into something unrecognizable when compared to it's original iteration. In the end, it is a more robust site that appeals to a much larger audience. I am no longer part of the administration but still participate.</p>

<p>The same can be said of PN. Change is inevitable and some will be left behind. Sorry Steve, your loyalty and participation is appreciated, I'm a member here because of folks like you, because I can learn from you and in turn reciprocate that knowledge. Being a member of any community means knowing that it isn't all just for you.</p>

[joshroot]

<blockquote>

<p>From the looks of it, the Twitter account pushed the OP over the edge or maybe it was that he discovered that PN has a blog,</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Man, I sure hope that wasn't it. My goal with those things is just more communication with the PN community. Something that long time members will remember being in short supply at some times in PN's history.</p>

<p>But whatever, if Twitter or a blog really gets your goat, so be it. We've all got things that we love and hate about the internet. (I myself hate smilies. Oh man do I hate them...)</p>

[CharlesBecker-Toronto]

<p>"(I myself hate smilies. Oh man do I hate them...)" well Josh, given the fact that most of us think that things are better now than before (and I agree!), there are probably more smilies because your subscribers are happier so if you want to reduce the number of smilies, then you should probably...oh wait, I don't like where this is going...never mind. cb (not putting a smilie here-as tempting as it is!.</p>

[jenkins]

<p><strong><em>(I myself hate smilies. Oh man do I hate them..)</em></strong><br>

I could not resist it Charles.<br>

:)<br>

<strong><em></em></strong></p>

[steve_bingham]

<p>"You might want to put your money where your mouth is, Steve, and consider subscribing."<br>

Well, perhaps I was a little hard. My apologies. I am just sad at the current state of ambiguity and commercialism. As for me not contributing, that's not quite true. What it doesn't say after my name was that I paid for memberships for 4 other people just this past year - I figured they needed it more than I did.<br>

What it also doesn't say after my name is the fact that I have responded in writing to forum questions some 1,601 times and rated 2,101 photographs. I did this for the sole purpose of helping fellow photographers learn and enjoy their hobby (or even profession).<br>

And, although I am disappointed in many ways, this does not mean that I don't appreciate the hard work of folks like Bob Atkins, Josh Root, and many others. I just wish it hadn't turned commercial. But I understand why. I own three businesses and they aren't run on good feelings and great intentions. They are run on solid business principals.</p>

[patrick j dempsey]

<p>I'm not sure I understand the whole attitude that me not viewing ads is somehow hurting a website. I don't think I have ever to my knowledge bought anything because of an advertisement, be it on a website, newpaper, television or radio. I'm broke, I buy used stuff from places recommended by friends. I've been thinking for years about subscribing but the money goes to food, a roof and film. </p>

[steve_bingham]

<p> For some reason I couldn't edit the above message - something about me not being the author. Funny. So . . .and . . . I first contributed in June of 1997 - almost 12 years ago. I am still contributing. You see photo.net was the first. The grandaddy of all photo forums. Unfortunately (or not) many clones have jumped on the band wagon. The internet has changed greatly. However, even though I have been asked many times to run ads on my puny web site, I have refused. I guess I am getting old - and grouchy. (Please imagine a smiling face here as smiley's are disliked by some.) It really isn't the ads anyway, it's the bigness and ambiguity!</p>

[marc_bergman1]

<p>"The grandaddy of all photo forums."</p>

<p>Compuserve had a great photo forum in the early 90's. </p>

<p>I remember all the work Bob Atkins did in developing the rec.photo forums.</p>

<p>There are plenty of photo forums from which to choose. I plan to re-subscribe to this one.</p>

<p> </p>

[Wayne Melia]

<p><em>"Photo.net has sunk to the bottom of credibility."</em><br>

Nonsense. Photo.net's credibility comes from the community it is. I never cease to be amazed at the helpful advice given by the members, who patiently give advice to others; sometimes repeating answers to questions that have been asked before, sometimes sharing "higher level" technical tips and tricks they have used in challenging circumstances, etc., often sharing insight about light, composition or other reasons why a photo works. <br>

It's easy to take this for granted, but let me write my <strong>THANK YOU</strong> to those that do, and to the people who's work enables it to happen. As previously explained, the advertising issue is a non-issue for subscribers, so whining about it is the depth of stupidity.</p>

 

[stwrtertbsratbs5]

<p>The site is better now that there are far fewer film vs. digital threads!</p>

[jenkins]

<p>The advertising is in the window, come in and meet the staff and customers, have a cup of tea and talk bollocks in the Off Topic which is probably where this thread belongs.</p>

<p> </p>

[steve_bingham]

<p>. . . and I am wondering how many actally read these threads - or simply jump from the topic entry to the bottom entry. My guess would be not many - including the most recent responders. Again, part of the problem of which I address. Too many people, too little time.</p>

[msitaraman]

<p>IMHO, its a miracle that photo.net has been able to keep the sparse, uncluttered black,white and dark blue look of the old photo.net from 12 years ago, even after migrating to a commercial/advertising based model. Click on a link to any photo.net forum, it pretty much looks the same as always, all things considered. The ad material is sequestered by a thin line border, and thus is easy to automatically filter out, in one's mind's eye.</p>

[cabbiinc]

<p>The only complaint that I have about the ads is that I actually clicked on one once and it didn't go anywhere/do anything.</p>

[allardk]

<p>Ambiguity? What do you mean by that Steve? And what do you mean by bigness? You would have preferred it to be unknown except to a small set of people? <br>

As for the ads, I don't mind them at all. At least they are for photography equipment, not porn sites or mortgages. I even click them sometimes if only to support the site or find out about the differences in prices between the US and Holland. Ads are fine as long as the advertisers have nothing to say about content. I currently have no reason at all to suspect any problems in that department and so I have not searched for (and hence not found) a declaration about this by PN management.<br>

I joined PN in 2002, was away for a while and came back last year. I found it has changed very little compared to how the rest of the net has changed in that time. I am still very much impressed by the level of photography on display and information available in the forums. Yes there are outliers but the average and median are way above most of what I've seen on the net.</p>

[b_reagan]

<p>I've only been a member for a few years so I can't speak to how things were. I do agree with the comment that PN's strength is the user community. I was drawn to both the incredible images and the invaluable tutorials, but have come to rely on the forums. The dedication of time from users such as Matt Laur, Bob Atkins and many others I find on a wide range of threads I haven't seen anywhere else.<br>

Ain't no free lunch boyz. I'm proud to pay my money; I've made my choice.<br>

Bernard</p>